Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination

Transcript

The Antecedent to Salvation: Predestination · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to the deep dive brought to you by Reformed Thinking.
0:03
Here we sift through, you know, stack of sources, notes,
0:06
research and try to pull out the most telling insights for you.
0:09
Our aim is really to offer you a useful shortcut to being well
0:12
informed, maybe uncovering some compelling facts and just
0:16
sparking enough curiosity to keep you hooked.
0:18
Each deep dive is crafted for you, our listener, and it serves
0:21
as your guide to understanding the most significant aspects of
0:24
the material you've shared with us.
0:25
Yeah, we're here to help you figure out what stands out and
0:29
importantly, why it matters. Connecting the concepts, looking
0:32
at different perspectives. So today we're embarking on a
0:35
deep dive into, well, it's one of Christian thoughts, most
0:38
puzzling doctrines, often misunderstood predestination.
0:43
I think many find this topic pretty obscure, maybe even
0:46
feeling it's beyond our human grasp, or perhaps that it
0:49
doesn't offer much practical application.
0:51
Yeah, because biblical revelation does mention this
0:53
concept, we feel called to inquire into its meaning, you
0:56
know, regardless of how challenging it might seem.
0:58
Right. Our purpose for this deep dive
1:01
is really to unpack what predestination genuinely means.
1:05
We want to trace its historical path through different Christian
1:08
eras, compare and contrast the diverse viewpoints that have
1:11
popped up, and consider what the biblical message on this topic
1:14
means for us today. OK, let's begin by setting the
1:16
stage, because when we talk about predestination, it's a
1:20
term that gets, well, thrown around pretty broadly in just
1:23
everyday conversation, right? But in theological discussion,
1:27
it actually has some very specific definitions.
1:29
So to make sure we're all kind of thinking along the same
1:31
lines, let's maybe clarify some foundational terms right at the
1:34
start. That's a really good starting
1:36
point. The broadest term we'll probably
1:38
use is foreordination. Think of this as God's
1:41
overarching will concerning, well, all events that happen
1:44
within His creation. This covers everything from the
1:47
ultimate destiny of individuals down to, you know, simple,
1:50
everyday things like a leaf falling from a tree or a rock
1:53
tumbling down a hill. It really encompasses the
1:55
entirety of God's comprehensive plan for everything.
1:59
OK, so forward Nation is this grand, like all-encompassing
2:03
umbrella for everything God wills.
2:05
Where does predestination then fit into that picture?
2:08
Does it narrow things down it? Absolutely narrows the focus,
2:11
Yes. Predestination is sort of midway
2:14
in specificity. While foreordination covers all
2:16
events, predestination refers specifically to God's choice
2:19
regarding individuals, specifically for either eternal
2:22
life or eternal death. So it zeroes in on the ultimate
2:26
spiritual destiny of human beings as part of God's eternal
2:29
purposes. And then there's election.
2:31
That one feels even more specific.
2:33
How does that relate to predestination?
2:35
Election is definitely the most specific of these three.
2:37
It represents the the positive aspect of predestination.
2:40
It refers solely to God's selection of some individuals
2:43
for eternal life. So while predestination can
2:46
broadly cover both outcomes, salvation and condemnation,
2:49
election really highlights the specific choice for salvation.
2:52
It's God's choosing of his own people.
2:54
That brings some helpful clarity to the vocabulary.
2:56
Thanks. But even with these definitions,
2:59
like we touched on earlier, the doctor in predestination often
3:02
seems well shrouded in mystery to many people.
3:05
It feels like a truly tough nut to crack.
3:07
Given how difficult it seems, why dedicate a whole deep dive
3:10
to it? Why press into something that
3:12
feels so challenging? Well, Despite that perceived
3:15
difficulty, the fact is the biblical presentation of this
3:18
doctrine really compels Christians to inquire into its
3:21
meaning. It's not really a concept we can
3:23
just sidestep or ignore because it feels hard to grasp.
3:26
Since it is part of God's revealed word, we're called to
3:29
diligently study it, try to comprehend it, believing that
3:33
all scripture is useful for teaching and, you know, shaping
3:35
us. Ignoring it would mean
3:37
overlooking a part of how God has revealed Himself.
3:39
OK, with those terms now a bit clearer, let's move into our
3:42
historical overview. We'll sort of embark on a
3:46
sweeping journey through time exploring how this doctrine has
3:49
been understood, debated, and refined across Christian
3:52
history. This is really where the ideas
3:55
take shape and frankly challenge us to think.
3:57
And we should probably begin with what was arguably A
4:00
monumental debate, one that really shapes centuries of
4:03
Christian thought, that intense exchange between Augustine and
4:07
Pelagius back in the 4th and 5th centuries.
4:10
AD Oh yeah, this is definitely a foundational controversy.
4:13
Understanding it is pretty key to grasping all the later
4:16
developments, you know. Augustine's views on human
4:18
nature and God's grace were profoundly shaped by his own
4:21
spiritual journey, his own struggles, and his growing
4:24
conviction of humanity's well deep seated sinfulness, the
4:27
absolute need for divine transforming grace.
4:30
He didn't just see grace as an aid, he saw it as the very
4:33
source of any good in humanity. Right.
4:35
So can you lay out Augustine's starting point for humanity like
4:39
before the fall happened? Augustine asserted that Adam
4:42
began life in a state of genuine freedom.
4:45
He possessed the possibility of choosing either good or evil.
4:48
However, Adam's sin, what we call the fall, didn't just
4:51
affect Adam, it actually tainted human nature itself.
4:54
This tendency towards sin, this corrupted nature, was then
4:57
transmitted to all his descendants, and as a result,
5:00
Augustine argued, humanity lost the freedom to abstain from evil
5:04
and to choose good on its own power.
5:07
Now, a general freedom of will remained, you know, the ability
5:10
to make choices, but that will was invariably used contrary to
5:13
God's purpose unless it was assisted by divine aid.
5:16
It was, you could say, a freedom to sin, but not really a freedom
5:19
not to sin. OK, so it wasn't a loss of all
5:21
freedom, but specifically the loss of the ability to choose
5:24
good without God's direct help. And how did Augustine explain
5:28
our participation in Adam's sin? What do you mean by everyone
5:30
being present in Adam? Augustine believed that all of
5:33
humanity was, in his words, present in Adam, germanally or
5:37
seminally, meaning in a very real sense, we were all sort of
5:42
in him when he sinned, and thus we participated in his sin.
5:46
This means all human beings start life in a seriously marred
5:49
condition, unable to avoid sin or do good without God's grace
5:54
intervening. Our natural choices without this
5:57
grace are inherently sinful, reflecting that corrupted nature
6:00
we inherited from Adam. And God's grace for Augustine
6:04
was clearly central to restoring that ability.
6:07
It sounds like it wasn't just a gentle nudge, though.
6:09
You're right, He held that God's grace actually restores true
6:12
freedom, enabling humans to genuinely choose good.
6:15
This grace, interestingly though it empowers an uncoerced choice,
6:19
is also described by Augustine as irresistible in its effect.
6:23
It works in concert with human wills, he said, so it doesn't
6:27
force a robotic response, but it effectively brings about a
6:29
genuine, willing choice for good by actually transforming the
6:32
will itself. The will isn't destroyed, it's
6:34
renewed. OK, given that, it seems to
6:36
follow that God's choice to save isn't based on him foreseeing
6:39
what humans will do on their own initiative.
6:41
Precisely. Augustine concluded that
6:43
choosing or doing good is entirely a result of God's prior
6:47
will and his initiating grace. God chooses who receives this
6:51
transforming grace and who is left in their sinful state, and
6:54
He makes this choice from all eternity.
6:57
Critically, it is not based on him foreseeing human good deeds,
7:00
because for Augustine, those good deeds themselves depend
7:02
entirely on his grace in the 1st place.
7:05
You can't really foresee something that wouldn't even
7:07
happen without your own prior action making it possible.
7:11
That can sound like a pretty tough position for many people
7:13
to accept. What about God's justice in this
7:15
whole scenario? How did I guess going to address
7:17
that? Augustine argued there's
7:19
actually no injustice in God's choice.
7:21
He maintained that a truly just outcome, given our fallen state,
7:24
would be the condemnation of all humanity.
7:27
Therefore, salvation is purely an act of God's compassion and
7:30
mercy, something he is not obligated to provide to anyone
7:33
at all. The condemned in this fear
7:35
receive exactly what they deserve according to justice.
7:37
The elect, however, receive far more than they deserve, this
7:40
incredible gift of salvation. So God is just in condemning all
7:44
and incredibly merciful and saving some.
7:46
OK. Now a contemporary of Augustine,
7:48
Pelagius had a radically different perspective on human
7:51
nature and God's role in salvation.
7:54
What was his counter position? Pelagius, who was really
7:57
primarily A moralist concerned with human responsibility,
8:00
argued that each person enters the world with a will completely
8:03
unbiased towards evil, total neutral.
8:06
Adam's fall, in his view, had no direct effect on an individual's
8:10
ability to do good. It just served as a bad example,
8:13
not some kind of corrupting influence on human nature
8:16
itself. Individuals, since they're
8:18
directly created by God, don't inherit evil or a tendency
8:21
toward it from Adam. They're born essentially as Adam
8:24
was before the fall, completely free and able to choose good or
8:27
evil. And how does God influence
8:29
individuals, according to Pelagius, if it wasn't through
8:31
some kind of internal special grace?
8:33
Pelagius believed God influences us through external aids, things
8:38
like free will itself, our capacity for reason, the law
8:41
given through Moses, and of course, Christ's perfect
8:44
example. These aids, he argued, are
8:47
equally available to all humanity.
8:49
God, for Pelagius, exercises no special internal force on anyone
8:54
to choose good. The choice rests entirely with
8:56
individuals inherent, uncompromised free will.
8:59
So for Pelagius, the basis of predestination was fundamentally
9:02
different. It wasn't about God's prior
9:04
choice, but something else entirely.
9:06
That's exactly right. He believed God's predestining
9:09
of persons was based entirely on his foreseeing the quality of
9:12
individuals lives, their good choices, and their righteous
9:15
deeds. Pelagius even felt that
9:17
sinlessness was actually possible for human beings,
9:20
reasoning that God wouldn't command holiness if it were
9:22
completely unattainable by human effort.
9:24
Therefore, God simply foresaw who would choose to live
9:27
righteously and predestined them accordingly based on that
9:30
foresight. Wow, the clash between these two
9:32
views was really profound and had such lasting consequences.
9:36
What were the outcomes of this major controversy?
9:38
Well, the Council of Ephesus in 431 CE officially condemned
9:42
Pelagianism, affirming the necessity of divine grace.
9:46
That was a clear outcome. However, what largely gained
9:49
traction in the immediate aftermath wasn't pure
9:51
Augustinianism, but a position known as semi Pelagianism.
9:55
Which, as the name kind of suggests, was a sort of middle
9:57
ground. Try to find a compromise, right?
9:58
Yes exactly. Semi Pelagianism advocated for
10:01
synergism, which is the view that God, mud, and humans sort
10:05
of together accomplish salvation.
10:07
In this view, humans make the initial move towards God, maybe
10:11
by desiring grace or preparing their will in some way, and then
10:14
God responds with his grace, enabling full salvation.
10:17
So it wasn't a purely human effort like Pelagius argued, but
10:20
it still placed the initial impulse, the first step, on the
10:23
human side. But even this position was later
10:25
considered and eventually condemned by the Synod of Orange
10:28
in 529-CE. This Synod decisively upheld
10:31
human inability to initiate salvation and the absolute
10:35
necessity of divine grace for that first step.
10:37
However, it's worth noting that this Synod didn't insist on
10:40
absolute predestination or irresistible grace in the full
10:43
Augustinian sense. So what followed for centuries
10:45
was often described as a milder, more nuanced Augustinianism, one
10:49
that emphasized grace but perhaps left a bit more room for
10:51
human response than Augustine himself might have.
10:54
So a version of Augustine's ideas, maybe softened a bit,
10:57
became the dominant theological current for quite some time.
11:01
As we move into what the outline calls the medieval echoes from
11:04
roughly the 9th to 16th centuries, we see a continued
11:07
wrestling with these intricate ideas.
11:09
It shows they were far from settled.
11:11
Indeed, they kept cropping up. In the 9th century, for
11:14
instance, A theologian named Gotshock emerged as a pretty
11:18
strong voice. He explicitly defended double
11:21
predestination, meaning he believed God equally applied his
11:24
predestining decree to both the elect for salvation and the lost
11:29
for condemnation. His views, however, were
11:31
considered quite extreme by many of his contemporaries and were
11:34
condemned in 848-CE. His position was seen as maybe
11:38
too deterministic, implying God actively willed the damnation of
11:41
certain individuals. And Johannes Goto Sarajina, also
11:45
in the 9th century, had a rather interesting point about
11:47
foreknowledge that almost seems to transcend our human
11:50
understanding of time. Yes, he did.
11:52
He rejected the idea that predestination could be based on
11:55
God's foreknowledge. In The way we understand
11:58
foreknowledge, Eri Jenna argued that because God is eternal and
12:02
completely outside of time, he sees all things at once in a
12:05
single, timeless present moment. This makes the very concept of
12:09
foreknowledge, knowing something that will happen in the future,
12:11
kind of alien to God in the human sense.
12:14
For God, everything simply is. This was more of a philosophical
12:17
insight really, seeking to preserve God's immutability and
12:20
timelessness. OK, moving forward a bit, we
12:23
encounter huge figures like Anselm, Peter Lombard, and
12:26
Thomas Aquinas from the 11th to 13th centuries, real pillars of
12:29
Scholastic theology. What were their general stances
12:32
on this ongoing discussion? Generally speaking, they
12:34
advocated positions that were fundamentally Augustinian in
12:38
their foundation. Aquinas, for example, famously
12:41
distinguished between God's general will for all to be
12:44
saved, which he saw as a benevolent desire for the good
12:47
of all creation, and his special will in electing some and
12:50
rejecting others. This special will was a more
12:53
direct, effectual will related specifically to individual
12:56
salvation. So he held that while God
12:58
desires all to be saved in a general sense, His specific
13:01
decree of election is sovereign and applies only to some
13:04
according to his wisdom. So even with strong Augustinian
13:07
voices like Aquinas around, what was the general theological
13:11
current in Catholic theology leading up to the Reformation?
13:13
Was it still holding firmly to this milder Augustinianism?
13:17
Well, not entirely. The dominant current you could
13:19
say in Catholic theology leading up to the Reformation actually
13:23
saw a noticeable drift back towards pelagianism, or at least
13:27
semi pelagianism. This meant there was often a
13:30
greater focus on God's foreknowledge of individual
13:32
worthiness, the idea that God chooses those he foresees will
13:36
cooperate with grace or perform good works.
13:39
Now there were some notable exceptions, like John Wycliffe
13:42
in England and Thomas Bradwardine, who strongly argued
13:45
for more absolute views of God's sovereignty and grace.
13:48
But the general emphasis often shifted towards human merit, or
13:51
at least foreseeing merit as the basis for God's choice.
13:54
And that drift really sets the stage perfectly for the
13:57
Reformation's Clarion call in the 16th and 17th centuries,
14:00
where this doctrine of predestination received a really
14:02
forceful re articulation. Martin Luther, obviously a
14:05
pivotal figure, certainly made his mark here.
14:07
Oh, absolutely. Luther's understanding evolved
14:10
quite significantly. He initially followed The
14:13
Alchemist view, which was a late medieval theological school
14:16
emphasizing God's absolute freedom.
14:19
This often led to the idea that God's predestination was based
14:22
simply on foreseeing what humans would do by their own will.
14:26
However, through his own diligent study of Scripture,
14:29
especially Paul's letters like Romans and a fresh reading of
14:32
Augustine, Luther shifted dramatically to a very firm
14:35
Augustinian position. He came to stress God's absolute
14:39
sovereignty and election, powerfully illustrating it with
14:42
biblical examples like God choosing Isaac over Ishmael and
14:45
Jacob over Esau before they had done anything good or bad,
14:48
showing it wasn't based on their actions.
14:50
And his famous debate with Erasmus really brought this
14:52
concept of human inability and divine sovereignty right to the
14:55
forefront, didn't it? It absolutely did.
14:58
Erasmus, representing more of a humanist perspective focused on
15:02
human dignity and capacity, argued for the freedom of the
15:05
will, asserting humanity's ability to choose good.
15:08
Luther countered this with his own powerful treatise, famously
15:11
titled The Bondage of the Will, asserting humanity's utter
15:14
inability to choose good or respond savingly to God without
15:17
divine intervention. For Luther, the will of fallen
15:21
humanity was bound to sin, incapable of inclining itself
15:24
towards God unless freed by grace.
15:27
Then, of course, we have John Calvin, whose name became almost
15:29
synonymous with the doctrine of predestination.
15:31
He articulated perhaps the most definitive statement on it.
15:34
Yes, Calvin articulated a very clear and comprehensive
15:37
statement on predestination, particularly in his Institutes
15:41
of the Christian Religion. He viewed investigating it not
15:44
just as some academic exercise but as having deep practical
15:47
significance for believers, something that brought both
15:49
humility before God and great assurance.
15:52
He insisted that God has sovereignly and freely chosen to
15:55
save some and reject others, and that God is wholly just and
15:58
blameless in this decree. For Calvin, the knowledge of 1's
16:02
election leads believers not to complacency or arrogance, but to
16:05
pursue a holy life with assurance found as God's Word
16:08
actively shapes and changes one's life.
16:11
It's served as a motivation for piety, not a reason for inaction
16:14
or presumption. And Calvin's successor, Theodore
16:17
Pisa, often gets mentioned for kind of extending these ideas,
16:19
maybe pushing them to what some consider their logical, albeit
16:23
pretty stark, conclusions. Bezos certainly took Calvin's
16:26
teaching of double predestination further, or at
16:29
least articulated it in a very specific way.
16:32
He is often associated with the view that God not only elects
16:36
some for salvation, but also actively wills the sin and
16:40
damnation of others, effectively suggesting God causes humans to
16:43
sin as part of his sovereign plan for their reprobation.
16:47
He developed a concept called supralepsarianism, where the
16:50
decree to save some and damn others logically precedes the
16:54
decree to create humanity and permit the fall.
16:57
Now, this view potentially implies that God creates some
17:00
individual specifically in order to dam them, making their
17:03
damnation the actual purpose of their creation.
17:05
This interpretation became highly influential in some
17:08
Reformed circles for a time, though it was certainly not
17:10
universally accepted even then. OK, this brings us to these
17:14
various lapsarian variations, which deal with the logical
17:17
order of God's decrees regarding humanity's creation, fall, and
17:21
salvation. These sound like subtle but
17:23
significant distinctions for theologians.
17:25
Can you bring those down for us a bit more clearly?
17:27
Certainly these lapsarian positions are indeed about the
17:30
logical order of God's decrees in eternity.
17:33
It's not necessarily a chronological sequence in time,
17:36
since God's decrees are eternal, but how they relate to each
17:40
other in God's mind, so to speak.
17:42
First you have of super lapsarianism.
17:44
Like we just discussed with Beza.
17:46
This view posits that God's decree to save some and condemn
17:49
others logically comes before his decree to create humanity
17:53
and permit the fall. So in this logical sequence, God
17:56
first decides who will be saved and who will be lost.
17:58
Then he decides to create a world where this distinction can
18:01
be actualized through the fall. This is the view that carries
18:05
that difficult implication that God creates some simply to damn
18:08
them, or that their damnation is explicitly decreed before their
18:11
existence or their foreseen sin. OK, so the decision about
18:14
salvation and damnation is the first logical step, even before
18:17
creating humanity or allowing the fall.
18:20
What about infra lapsarianism? How does that rearrange the
18:23
sequence? Infra lapsarianism places the
18:25
decree to create human beings and permit the fall logically
18:29
before the decree to save some and condemn others.
18:32
So in this logical ordering, God first envisions humanity as
18:36
created and then fallen, and then from this fallen mass he
18:39
chooses who to save and who to pass by, leaving them to
18:41
justice. It sees God's election more as a
18:44
response to humanity's foreseen fallen condition, rather than
18:46
preceding it logically. And then there's
18:48
sublapsarianism, which has another layer it seems.
18:51
That's right, sublapsarianism is very similar to
18:54
infralapsarianism in its initial steps.
18:56
It agrees that the decree to create human beings and permit
19:00
the fall comes first logically, but then it posits that this
19:04
precedes the decree to provide salvation sufficient for all
19:08
humanity through Christ. Only after that universal
19:11
provision does the specific choice of some to receive the
19:14
salvation come. So there's a sense of a
19:16
universal provision of salvation in Christ, but then a particular
19:19
application only to those chosen.
19:22
This view tries to harmonize the universal offer of the Gospel
19:25
with the specific nature of election.
19:27
These distinctions, while maybe seeming abstract, are crucial
19:30
for understanding the nuances within historic Reformed
19:33
thought. That's a lot of intricate
19:34
thought about how divine decrees are logically ordered.
19:37
Wow. Now, shifting gears quite
19:38
dramatically, let's look at the Armenian counterpoint, which
19:41
arose in the late 16th to 18th centuries and offered a vastly
19:44
different perspective. It began, interestingly, with
19:46
James Arminius, who is actually a student of Beze himself, which
19:50
makes his departure from strict Calvinism even more striking.
19:53
Indeed it does. Arminius, after his own careful
19:57
study of the Bible and church history, found himself becoming
20:00
less certain of some of the stricter Calvinist doctrines
20:03
he'd been taught, particularly double predestination and the
20:06
more extreme forms of super Lipsarianism.
20:09
His resulting views brought a whole fresh set of theological
20:12
principles to the discussion, ultimately shaping an entire
20:15
school of thought that continues today.
20:17
And what were his main points that really set him apart from
20:19
his teacher Bizaida and from Calvin?
20:21
Arminius laid out several key decrees he believed reflected
20:24
God's plan more accurately as he saw it in Scripture.
20:28
First, he posited that God's initial decree was to appoint
20:31
Jesus Christ as the Savior for the entire human race.
20:34
This universal aspect was foundational.
20:37
Second, God decreed that all who repent and believe in Christ
20:41
shall be saved, emphasizing faith and repentance as
20:43
necessary conditions for receiving salvation. 3rd, and
20:47
crucially, he taught that God grants sufficient grace to all
20:50
persons to enable them to believe.
20:53
They then retain the genuine freedom to either believe or
20:56
disbelieve. In this view, God does not
20:58
compel belief. The choice remains genuinely
21:01
free. Finally, Arminis believed God
21:03
predestines those whom he foreknows will believe.
21:06
His election is based on this divine foreknowledge of human
21:09
faith, not the other way around. So it's about God foreseeing
21:12
faith, not God causing it. Got it.
21:14
And John Wesley, of course, later took these ideas and
21:16
popularized them very widely, especially in the Methodist
21:18
movement. Yes, Wesley greatly expanded on
21:21
Arminianism, especially emphasizing what he called
21:24
prevenient, or universal grace. This grace, he believed, is
21:28
given indiscriminately to all humans.
21:30
Its function is to counteract the disabling effects of sin,
21:34
restoring sufficient ability for every individual to make a
21:37
genuine choice in submission to God.
21:39
This universal enablement for Armenians eliminates the need
21:43
for any special, particular application of God's grace to
21:46
specific individuals before they can respond.
21:49
Everyone gets this initial boost, so to speak.
21:52
And crucially, this grace is resistible.
21:54
Humans can choose to reject it or cooperate with it.
21:57
What a sweep of history we've covered, highlighting so many
22:00
different perspectives on predestination.
22:01
That's quite a journey. Now that we have this historical
22:04
context and the foundational terms laid out, let's try to
22:06
compare the divergent paths, the core tenets of these views,
22:09
maybe starting with Calvinism, often helpfully summarized by
22:12
that Tulip framework. Right.
22:13
The Tulip acronym is a pretty practical tool for recalling the
22:17
key points of classic Calvinistic doctrine, often
22:20
called the Doctrines of Grace. However, it's important to
22:23
remember, like we touched on with the Lapserian views,
22:25
variations do exist within Calvinism, but these five points
22:28
generally represent the core tenets.
22:31
OK, so let's start with T for total depravity.
22:34
What does that concept truly convey for Calvinists beyond
22:38
just saying people are generally sinful?
22:40
Total depravity posits that the entire human race is
22:43
fundamentally lost in sin. This means every individual is
22:47
so thoroughly affected by sin that they are by nature
22:50
completely unable to respond savingly to any offer of grace
22:53
on their own initiative. This condition involves both
22:56
moral corruption, which leads to what's called a moral
22:59
disability, and inability of the will to choose spiritual good,
23:02
and also guilt due to original sin and.
23:05
Original sin here refers back to Adam's sin.
23:08
How is that understood to affect all of us?
23:10
Yes, it refers to the sin of Adam.
23:13
Some Calvinist theologians believe Adam's sin is imputed,
23:16
meaning legally charged to all humanity because he acted as our
23:19
representative head. Others follow Augustine's view
23:22
more closely that the entire human race was present in Adam,
23:26
Germany, or Seminole and thus genuinely participated in his
23:30
sin, inheriting A corrupted nature directly.
23:33
Either way, it leads to what's called total inability, meaning
23:36
fallen sinners have lost the capacity to do spiritual good
23:39
and are unable to convert themselves or even prepare
23:41
themselves to turn to God without a direct prior work of
23:44
divine intervention. Now this doesn't mean humans are
23:47
as bad as they could possibly be, but rather that sin has
23:49
affected every part of their being, mind will emotions,
23:53
leaving no part untouched by its corruption, especially in
23:56
relation to God. And the Bible certainly seems to
23:59
paint a stark picture of humanity's natural state.
24:01
Indeed, passages like Ephesians 2 verses one through 3 which
24:05
describes people as dead in your transgressions and sins are
24:09
central, and John 6.44 where Jesus says no one can come to me
24:13
unless the Father who sent me draws them.
24:16
Humans are seen as hopelessly separated from God because of
24:19
their sin, unable to extricate themselves, afflicted with
24:23
spiritual blindness that prevents them from seeing God's
24:26
truth clearly, and a kind of spiritual insensitivity, leaving
24:29
them with fundamentally no desire to do so on their own.
24:32
They aren't just spiritually sick, they're spiritually dead,
24:34
requiring A resurrection initiate by God.
24:36
OK. Moving on to IF for
24:39
unconditional predestination or maybe a better term,
24:41
unconditional election, what does this signify in the
24:44
Calvinist framework? Unconditional election is
24:46
understood as God's choice of certain persons for His special
24:50
favor, specifically for eternal life and adoption as His
24:53
spiritual children. This choice is described as
24:56
absolute or unconditional, meaning it is not based on any
25:00
merit in the one elected, nor on foreseeing that the individual
25:03
will believe. Instead, God's election is seen
25:06
as the cause, not the result of faith.
25:09
It's purely an expression of God's sovereign will or good
25:11
pleasure, a choice made from all eternity and therefore
25:15
immutable. God doesn't change his mind
25:16
about who he has chosen. This choice flows entirely from
25:19
God's own gracious character and purpose.
25:21
And the concept of divine sovereignty is absolutely
25:23
foundational to this understanding, isn't it?
25:26
Placing God as the ultimate initiator in salvation.
25:29
It really is. God is seen as the Creator and
25:32
Lord of all things, utterly free to do whatever He wills
25:35
according to His perfect wisdom and goodness.
25:37
Biblical support for this is often drawn from Ephesians 1.4
25:41
to 5, where Paul writes that God chose us in him, Jesus Christ
25:45
before the creation of the world.
25:46
Also Jesus's words in John 15.16 You did not choose me, but I
25:51
chose you. And John 6.37 all those the
25:53
Father gives me will come to me seem to illustrate this
25:56
principle. Acts 13.48 notes that an Antioch
25:59
all who are appointed for eternal life believed,
26:02
suggesting a divine appointment precedes human belief.
26:05
Now this brings us to a key point in the whole debate, one
26:07
that often causes friction. How does Calvinism understand
26:11
free will given the strong concept of unconditional
26:14
election and total depravity? To some, it can sound like
26:17
humans are just puppets. That's a common concern.
26:20
Calvinists don't deny free will entirely, but they do deny free
26:23
will in the Armenian sense. That is an unhindered and
26:26
natural capacity to choose spiritual good apart from grace.
26:30
They argue that sin has fundamentally damaged or removed
26:33
the ability to exercise freedom properly in spiritual matters.
26:36
Fallen humanity is sometimes compared to a bird with a broken
26:40
wing. It might still be technically
26:42
free to try and fly, but it's utterly unable to do so
26:44
effectively. Humans are free to choose, but
26:47
merely to engage in one sin rather than another, or to
26:50
choose between different worldly desires.
26:53
They are not by nature free to truly desire or choose God apart
26:56
from His grace intervening. Only when God's special grace
26:59
comes to those He has chosen are they then able to respond
27:02
positively, and the argument is they will most assuredly and
27:05
infallibly turn to Him. When that happens, the position
27:08
is that God makes his offer so appealing that they will respond
27:11
affirmatively, not by external coercion, but by internally
27:14
giving them a willing heart that genuinely desires Him.
27:17
So they freely choose. But it is God who first gives
27:20
them the freedom and the desire to make that particular choice
27:22
for Him. You mentioned variations among
27:24
Calvinists earlier, particularly regarding how the non elector
27:27
viewed. Can you elaborate a bit more on
27:29
the concept of double predestination and how it
27:32
differs? Maybe in its softer and harder
27:34
forms? Certainly some Calvinists do
27:37
hold to double predestination, which basically means God's
27:40
eternal decree encompasses both election for salvation and
27:43
reprobation, or being destined for loss for damnation.
27:47
Calvin himself acknowledged this aspect of the doctrine famously
27:50
calling it a horrible decree, not meaning God is horrible, but
27:54
referring to the awe inspiring and potentially disturbing
27:57
feeling it might evoke in humans.
27:59
But he held it as biblical, flowing from the comprehensive
28:02
nature of God's sovereignty. Now within this there are
28:05
important nuances. A stricter view, sometimes
28:07
associated with figures like Biza might say God actively
28:11
wills the damnation of the non elect, perhaps even causing them
28:14
to sin to fulfill that decree. A softer view, often articulated
28:18
using terms like preterition or simply passing by, believes God
28:22
actively chooses the elect for salvation, but merely passes by
28:25
the non elect, leaving them in their self chosen sins.
28:29
In this softer view, their ultimate lostness is assigned to
28:32
their own sinful choices and rebellion, while God's decree
28:35
concerning them is one of non intervention, essentially
28:37
allowing justice to take its natural course for their sin.
28:40
So God is seen as active in choosing salvation for some, but
28:43
more passive regarding the reprobation of others, allowing
28:46
their just condemnation. And we touched on the logical
28:49
order of God's decrees, those lapsarian variations, which are
28:52
also important here for understanding these nuances.
28:55
Could you maybe just quickly reiterate how those positions
28:58
frame God's eternal choices in relation to the fall?
29:01
Yes, briefly, the Lapserian positions are key to
29:04
understanding the different theological frameworks within
29:06
Calvinism regarding the logical relationship between God's
29:09
decrees. Super Lapserianism, remember,
29:12
views God's decree to save some and condemn others as logically
29:15
preceding the decree to create humanity and permit the fall.
29:18
So the plan for salvation, damnation, comes first,
29:21
logically speaking. Infalapsarianism, by contrast,
29:25
places the decree to create human beings and permit the fall
29:27
logically before the decree to save some and condemn others.
29:31
God considers humanity as created and fallen, then
29:34
chooses. And Sublapsarianism builds on
29:37
infalapsarianism by adding that the decree to create and permit
29:40
the fall precedes the decree to provide salvation sufficient for
29:43
all through Christ. Then comes the decree to choose
29:45
some to actually receive the salvation.
29:48
OK, thanks, that helps keep them straight.
29:50
This leads us naturally into L for limited atonement, or maybe
29:54
better termed particular redemption, which is often
29:57
misunderstood. How does that fit into this
30:00
framework, especially with those Lapserian views in mind?
30:03
Right. Limited atonement in the Tulip
30:05
acronym sometimes misleads people into thinking the
30:07
atonement itself is somehow limited in its value or power.
30:11
It's more accurately understood and often preferred by
30:14
Calvinists today as particular redemption.
30:17
The Lapserian views help clarify this sub.
30:19
Lapsarianism, for example, maintains that Christ's attorney
30:22
work was indeed sufficient in value for all humanity.
30:25
It has infinite worth, enough to save everyone, but its intended
30:29
application is limited only to the elect, those whom God chose
30:32
from eternity to receive its benefits.
30:35
For stricter super lapsarians, the intention of the atonement
30:37
was explicitly only for the elect from the very beginning.
30:41
The debate isn't really about Christ's death being weak or
30:44
insufficient, but about its specific intended recipients
30:47
according to God's sovereign plan.
30:49
Was it designed to actually save all or designed to actually save
30:52
the elect? Got it.
30:53
Next is eye for irresistible grace.
30:56
This one also sounds typically problematic, like God forces
30:59
people to believe against their will.
31:01
How is this understood within Calvinism?
31:02
Calvinism teaches that God's electing grace is efficacious,
31:06
meaning it effectively accomplishes its intended
31:08
purpose. Those whom God has chosen will
31:11
most certainly come to faith. Because humanity is understood
31:14
to be in a state of total depravity and unable to respond
31:17
positively on its own, God must initiate a special action, often
31:21
called effectual calling, to draw those individuals to
31:24
himself. When God applies the special
31:26
grace, they are then made able to respond, and the teaching is
31:29
that they will respond positively.
31:32
This grace, while irresistible in its ultimate outcome, is said
31:35
to work in concert with human wills.
31:38
It makes them genuinely desire Christ and freely choose the
31:41
good which they previously couldn't and wouldn't choose.
31:44
God essentially makes his offer so appealing that they will
31:47
respond affirmatively because he has performed an inward work,
31:50
changing their heart and inclination.
31:52
So the idea is it's not coercion against an unwilling will, but
31:55
rather a gracious making willing of a previously unwilling will.
31:58
Key passages like John 6.44 draws them and John 6.37 all
32:03
those the Father gives me will come, are seen as supporting
32:06
this idea that God's drawing and choosing are indeed efficacious
32:09
and lead to a certain positive outcome.
32:11
And finally, P for perseverance of the Saints.
32:15
This is often a source of great assurance for believers in this
32:18
tradition. Absolutely.
32:20
This doctrine holds that those whom God has chosen and
32:23
effectively brought to faith through His irresistible grace
32:25
will not only come to faith, but will persevere in that faith to
32:29
the end. All the elect will certainly be
32:31
saved because God Himself preserves them by His power
32:34
through faith. This means once genuinely saved
32:37
by God's efficacious grace, they cannot ultimately or finally
32:41
lose their salvation because God Himself ensures their
32:44
continuance in faith. It's a security rooted firmly in
32:48
God's faithfulness and power, not in the believer's own
32:51
ability to hold on perfectly. OK, that's a good overview of
32:53
the Tulip points. Now let's contrast this clearly
32:55
with Arminianism, which, as we noticed, starts from a very
32:58
different logical conviction about God's fundamental desire
33:01
for humanity. That's right.
33:02
The logical starting point for much of Arminianism is the
33:05
strong conviction that God genuinely desires all persons to
33:08
be saved. They frequently cite passages
33:11
like Ezekiel 33 point lovin where God declares I take no
33:14
pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they
33:17
turn from their ways and live. Also second Peter 3.9 stating
33:21
God is not wanting anyone to perish but everyone to come to
33:24
repentance and first Timothy 2.3 to 4 which says God wants all
33:28
people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.
33:30
These verses are really central to their understanding of God's
33:33
universal love and saving will. And those universal invitations
33:37
we hear in Scripture like Isaiah 55.1 come.
33:39
All you who are thirsty, or Matthew 11.28 come to me.
33:43
All you who are weary and burdened are seen by Armenians
33:46
is clearly implying A genuine human ability to respond.
33:49
If God sincerely invites everyone, then everyone must be
33:52
capable of answering that invitation.
33:54
Exactly. This leads directly to their
33:56
second key tenant, the ability to believe, which John Wesley,
34:00
as we mentioned, popularized with the concept of preventing
34:02
grace. Preventing grace is understood
34:05
as God's grace given universally and indiscriminately to all
34:08
humans before they even believe. It's like a universal divine
34:12
enabling that goes ahead of our response.
34:14
Its function is to counteract the effect of sin to some degree
34:17
and restore sufficient ability to make a choice in submission
34:20
to God, allowing any person to respond positively to the gospel
34:24
call if they choose to. This universal enablement for
34:27
Armenians eliminates the need for any special, particular,
34:30
irresistible application of God's grace only to specific
34:33
individuals. Everyone gets this initial
34:36
grace. So grace is universally
34:38
available, and it activates or restores enough human free will
34:41
for anyone to potentially choose salvation.
34:44
This then obviously shapes their understanding of election itself
34:46
quite differently. It does for our minions.
34:49
Election is therefore conditional.
34:51
God predestines those whom he foreknows will freely choose to
34:54
believe. Election is based on God's
34:56
infinite knowledge, His foresight of who will accept the
34:59
offer of salvation when it's presented to them, enabled by
35:02
prevenient grace passages like Romans 8.29 For those God
35:06
foreknew he also predestined, and first Peter 1.1.
35:09
The 2 are cited here, interpreting fornu primarily as
35:12
a neutral advance knowledge of future belief.
35:15
It's God looking down the corridors of time, as it were,
35:17
and seeing who will say yes to his offer.
35:19
And consistent with God's desire for all to be saved, Armenians
35:23
also naturally hold universal atonement, implying Christ's
35:26
death was sufficient for all and also intended for all.
35:30
And related to the ability to believe, grace is also seen as
35:32
fundamentally resistible. That's correct on both counts.
35:36
Armenians understand Christ's atonement as truly universal in
35:39
its design and scope, making salvation genuinely available to
35:43
every single person. And yes, because prevenient
35:46
grace only enables choice rather than determining it.
35:49
Grace is offered to all, but individuals retain the freedom
35:52
to choose to believe or disbelieve.
35:54
God does not compel belief. The individual retains the power
35:57
of acceptance or rejection. Grace can be, and often is,
36:01
resisted and ultimately rejected by human free will.
36:04
Armenians also raised several direct objections to Calvinism
36:07
based on these principles. What are some of those key
36:09
concerns they often voice? Well, one major concern is that
36:12
Calvinism, if taken to its logical conclusion, could lead
36:15
to a kind of fatalism. The argument is, if God has
36:18
already determined everything, including salvation, do human
36:21
actions and choices ultimately become irrelevant?
36:24
Does it lead to a worldview where ethical behavior or
36:27
personal responsibility doesn't truly matter because the outcome
36:30
is fixed? Another objection often raised
36:32
is that it seems to negate the motivation for evangelism and
36:35
missions. If the number of elect is fixed
36:38
from eternity, why bother spreading the gospel or
36:40
undertaking missions? It might seem futile as the
36:43
outcome is already decided regardless of human effort.
36:46
Finally, and perhaps most significantly for many, is the
36:49
objection that it appears to contradict genuine human freedom
36:52
and responsibility. They argue God's determining
36:55
decrees make humans seem like otomatons or robots, which they
36:59
contend negates true freedom, moral accountability, and the
37:02
basis for genuine relationships. In such a system, they question
37:05
the point of divine commendation for good deeds or rebuke for sin
37:09
if choices are ultimately predetermined by God.
37:11
Those are definitely weighty objections that have fueled
37:14
centuries of debate. This brings us now to a
37:16
significant 20th century reinterpretation, that of Karl
37:20
Barth. He was a highly influential
37:22
Reformed theologian, but he ultimately departed quite
37:25
radically from traditional Calvinism in his understanding
37:28
of predestination. Yes, Barth felt that traditional
37:31
Calvinism, especially in some of its later, more scholastic
37:34
expressions, had potentially misunderstood the core biblical
37:38
witness. He thought it sometimes started
37:40
with a rather abstract metaphysical belief in a static
37:43
relationship between God and the universe where individuals are
37:47
eternally chosen or rejected, sort of outside of the main
37:50
narrative of Christ. He felt this approach could
37:52
become too impersonal, too deterministic, and not
37:55
sufficiently centered on the gospel event itself, the person
37:58
and work of Jesus Christ. He really wanted a more dynamic,
38:01
biblical and thoroughly Christ focused approach to this
38:04
doctrine. And he insisted on making Jesus
38:06
Christ the absolute starting point and the very core of the
38:08
doctrine of predestination, rather than starting with an
38:11
abstract divine decree about individuals.
38:14
How did that reorient his whole thinking?
38:16
It completely reoriented it. Barth insisted on making Jesus
38:20
Christ the absolute center and starting point.
38:22
He argued that God's fundamental and eternal will is ultimately
38:25
to elect, not reject, human beings.
38:28
And this gracious will is fully and definitively revealed in
38:31
Jesus Christ, the incarnation itself.
38:34
God becoming human in Christ was for Barth the ultimate proof
38:37
that God is for humanity, that his deepest intention is not
38:40
judgement but salvation and fellowship.
38:42
It reveals God's gracious disposition towards all creation
38:46
focused in Christ. So for Barth, election isn't
38:49
primarily about God choosing individuals apart from Christ,
38:52
but it's rooted in Christ himself, Uniquely so.
38:55
Precisely for Barth, God's one eternal electing decree is the
38:59
election of Jesus Christ. He posited that in Christ the
39:02
entire human race has been chosen by God.
39:04
Christ is the elected 1 the chosen man, and all humanity is
39:08
elected in him. This radically shifts
39:10
predestination from being primarily A decree about sorting
39:12
individuals into two groups to being a statement about God's
39:15
decisive action in Christ for all humanity collectively.
39:18
And how did he then reinterpret that really challenging concept
39:21
of double predestination, which we saw was a sticking point for
39:25
many, even causing Calvin himself to call it a horrible
39:28
decree? This is perhaps one of Bart's
39:30
most remarkable and debated moves.
39:32
He didn't simply dismiss double predestination, he radically
39:36
reinterpreted it in light of Christ.
39:38
He asserted that Jesus Christ is truly both the electric God and
39:42
the elected man. Furthermore, he argued that
39:44
Christ in his life, death and resurrection, voluntarily
39:48
experienced the reprobation, perdition and death, meaning the
39:50
rejection, the ruin, the separation from God that
39:53
humanity deserve because of sin. In doing so, Christ bore and
39:57
effectively canceled the rejection humanity merited.
40:00
So in the ultimate eternal sense revealed in Christ, there is no
40:03
final rejection of humanity by God.
40:05
Rather, God has chosen rejection for Himself in the person of His
40:09
Son Jesus Christ, but chosen election for humanity in that
40:12
same Son. Christ is the rejected 1 so that
40:15
humanity might be the elected ones.
40:17
This is a profound reorientation, shifting the
40:20
terrible weight of divine rejection entirely on to God in
40:22
Christ, rather than leaving it as an eternal decree against
40:25
certain individual humans. Wow, that's a truly radical
40:29
reorientation of a traditionally very difficult concept.
40:32
And he spoke of a universal election of all human beings in
40:35
Jesus Christ. Does that mean he actually
40:37
believed in universal salvation? That everyone will ultimately be
40:40
saved, guaranteed. Arth was actually very cautious
40:43
about explicitly committing to universal salvation, although
40:47
his critics often accused him of implicitly teaching it or
40:50
logically leading to it. He preferred to clarify that
40:53
while all are indeed elect in Jesus Christ according to God's
40:56
eternal decision, not all people live as if they are elect.
40:59
Some, through their unbelief, live as if they are rejected
41:02
essentially by their own choosing, ignoring the reality
41:05
of their election in Christ. The church's vital role, then,
41:08
according to Barth, is to proclaim to such individuals the
41:11
good news that they belong eternally to Jesus Christ and
41:14
are therefore not rejected but elected by God in Jesus Christ.
41:18
For Barth, there's no absolute, ultimate difference between the
41:21
elect and the rejected, or between believers and
41:24
unbelievers in God's eternal decree in Christ.
41:26
The crucial difference lies in whether individuals realize and
41:29
live in light of their election. It's important to note, however,
41:32
as the source material points out, that Barth's unique view of
41:35
election, particularly its universal scope centered solely
41:39
in Christ, is often seen as having limited direct support
41:42
from specific biblical texts when examined through more
41:44
traditional interpretive methods.
41:46
That's a fascinating and yet provocative shift in
41:50
understanding how election works.
41:51
Very different. Now.
41:53
Let's pivot towards the end here to towards understanding a
41:56
suggested solution from the material we have.
41:59
This section seems to attempt to bring together various biblical
42:02
insights and address some of the tensions we've observed between
42:05
these different historical perspectives, proposing maybe a
42:08
cohesive biblical framework. Right.
42:11
This approach seems to begin by reiterating what it sees as a
42:14
fundamental biblical clarity that humans in their natural
42:18
state, apart from God's intervention, are truly lost,
42:21
characterized by spiritual blindness and unable to respond
42:24
in faith to the opportunity for salvation.
42:27
They are hopelessly separated from God because of their sin,
42:31
unable to extricate themselves, and afflicted with both
42:33
spiritual blindness and a deep seated insensitivity, having
42:37
fundamentally no desire to do so on their own.
42:39
This condition isn't just sickness, it's presented as
42:42
spiritual death. So the implication is, without
42:45
some kind of direct divine special action, no one would
42:48
ever actually respond positively to the gospel call, no matter
42:51
how clearly or persuasively it's presented.
42:55
It sounds like it aligns pretty closely with the Calvinist
42:57
understanding of total inability we discussed.
42:59
Precisely, and in that light, the concept of universal
43:02
preventing grace, which Arminianism relies on to explain
43:06
how all people can believe by having their ability partially
43:09
restored, is critiqued in the section for having no clear and
43:13
adequate basis in Scripture. It's viewed here more as a
43:16
theological construct, perhaps developed logically, to bridge a
43:19
perceived gap between universal offers and human inability,
43:23
rather than being an explicit biblical teaching found directly
43:26
in the text. The Bible, it's argued here,
43:29
seems to suggest a deeper, more pervasive inability than
43:32
provenient grace typically accounts for.
43:34
OK, so instead of provenient grace, this suggested solution
43:37
points strongly towards God's direct special action or
43:40
initiative as the absolutely necessary catalyst for anyone to
43:43
come to faith. Yes, the argument presented is
43:46
that there's an impressive collection of texts that
43:48
strongly suggest God has indeed selected some to be saved, and
43:52
that human response ultimately depends entirely on this prior
43:55
decision and initiative by God. For example, Peter's great
43:58
confession of Jesus as the Messiah wasn't something he
44:01
figured out on his own. Jesus explicitly says this was
44:04
not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in
44:07
heaven, pointing to divine revelation.
44:10
Matthew 16.7 time. Jesus further clarifies this
44:13
divine initiative in John 6.44, stating plainly no one can come
44:18
to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and also in John
44:21
15.16 You did not choose me, but I choose you.
44:25
These passages seem to point clearly to God's prior enabling
44:28
action being essential. And this drawing, in Choosing
44:30
You're described as something more than just a mere invitation
44:33
or enabling. They're presented as being
44:35
effective, actually bringing about faith in those chosen.
44:37
They are presented that way, yes, Jesus affirms, all those
44:41
the Father gives me will come to me, John 6.37.
44:45
And everyone who has heard the Father and learned from Him
44:48
comes to me. John 6.45.
44:51
These statements seem to indicate that the Father's
44:53
drawing and giving are indeed efficacious.
44:55
They reliably accomplish what God intends, resulting in people
44:58
coming to Christ. Furthermore, Acts 13.48 is cited
45:02
again stating that in Antioch all who are appointed for
45:05
eternal life believed. End Quote.
45:07
The Greek term used there to tag Manoy strongly favors the
45:11
passive voice indicating appointment by God, not some
45:13
kind of self appointment or a decision based on foreseen
45:16
faith. This again implies a divine
45:18
prior determination that results in faith.
45:21
The interpretation of foreknowledge in those key
45:22
passages like Romans 8.29. It's also really crucial here.
45:26
How does this suggested solution understand that term, especially
45:29
since Armenians often use it as the very basis for conditional
45:31
election? Yes, this is a critical point of
45:34
interpretation. The argument here is that the
45:36
Hebrew term yada to know, which often lies behind the Greek term
45:41
priginshka for new used in passages like Romans 8.29.
45:45
For those God foreknew, he also predestined.
45:47
And first Peter 1.1 to 2 signifies much more than just
45:51
simple advance knowledge or intellectual precognition.
45:54
In the Old Testament context, yada frequently carries the much
45:57
richer connotation of a very positive and intimate
46:00
relationship, suggesting something like looking with
46:03
favor on or loving someone in a special chosen way.
46:07
You know, like when the Bible says Adam knew Eve his wife.
46:10
It implies intimacy, relationship, setting apart.
46:13
Therefore foreknowledge in these key New Testament passages, when
46:16
understood against this Hebrew background, is argued here to
46:19
actually confirm predestination based on God's prior loving
46:22
choice, rather than being the ground for predestination based
46:24
on foreseen faith. It's not God simply seeing what
46:26
you'll do, but Him knowing you in advance in a choosing,
46:29
covenantal and affectionate way, setting His favor upon you.
46:32
OK, so if humanity is indeed in the state of total inability,
46:36
unable and unwilling to choose God, and God's special action or
46:40
effectual calling is necessary and always effective for those
46:42
He chooses, what does this all mean for reconciling God's
46:46
sincere, universal offers of salvation with this
46:48
understanding of human freedom, or lack thereof?
46:51
It still seems like a persistent tension.
46:53
It is a tension felt by many. The position articulated here is
46:57
that God sincerely offers salvation to all, extending A
47:00
genuine, bona fide call to repentance and faith to everyone
47:03
who hears the gospel. It's a real offer.
47:06
Yet because all humanity is so settled in our sins that we will
47:09
not respond unless assisted to do so by God's specific gracious
47:13
enablement, the universal offer doesn't result in universal
47:16
acceptance. The crucial question then shifts
47:20
It's not primarily whether unregenerate humans are free to
47:22
accept salvation. The answer given here is no,
47:25
they are not truly free in that sense, being totally depraved
47:29
and unwilling. Instead, the question becomes
47:31
whether those who are specially called by God's effectual grace
47:34
are free to reject it once that grace is applied.
47:37
And this suggested solution asserts that God makes His offer
47:40
so appealing that they will respond affirmatively.
47:42
He doesn't bypass their will, but He renews it, granting them
47:45
a new heart and a genuine willingness so that they freely
47:48
and gladly choose what they otherwise would not and could
47:50
not. They are not coerced against
47:52
their will, but are effectively made willing responders by
47:54
grace. OK, so pulling this all
47:56
together, what does this understanding mean for us as
48:00
believers today? What are the fruit of truth
48:02
implications for believers when we really grasp this doctrine
48:06
according to this perspective? Well, first it suggests we can
48:09
have a solid confidence and assurance that what God has
48:12
decided will come to pass, His eternal plan will be fulfilled,
48:16
and all the elect will genuinely come to faith in His timing.
48:19
This can provide a deep sense of security and a quiet trust in
48:22
God's sovereignty over all things, knowing His ultimate
48:25
purposes are inviolable. Even when the immediate path
48:29
seems uncertain or difficult, it can foster a genuine peace
48:32
rooted in His control, not ours. And presumably that would reduce
48:36
the tendency towards excessive self criticism or even
48:39
discouragement when sharing our faith, particularly when some
48:41
people reject Christ. It should.
48:43
Yes, Significantly, We need not necessarily criticize ourselves
48:47
excessively or carry the full emotional burden when someone
48:51
rejects the gospel message we share.
48:53
We can remember that Jesus Himself did not win every single
48:56
person in His audience during His earthly ministry.
48:59
He seemed to understand that all those whom the Father gave to
49:02
Him would come to Him, John 6.37, and implied that only they
49:07
would come, because only they were drawn, John 6.44 So when we
49:12
have done our very best in faithfully and lovingly sharing
49:14
the gospel, we can confidently leave the results with the Lord,
49:17
trusting His sovereign hand in the outcome, rather than feeling
49:21
the weight of conversion rests solely on our effectiveness.
49:24
And interestingly, it's argued here that this provides robust
49:27
motivation for evangelism and missions, rather than negating
49:30
it, as the common objection we mentioned earlier might suggest.
49:32
Absolutely. This understanding of
49:34
predestination, when properly grasped, does not nullify our
49:38
incentive for evangelism and missions.
49:40
It actually fuels it with confidence.
49:42
We don't know who the elect are. God hasn't given us that list.
49:45
So we must continue to spread the word faithfully to all
49:48
people indiscriminately. Our evangelistic efforts are in
49:52
fact seen as God's chosen and ordained means to bring the
49:55
elect to salvation. God's ordaining of the end, the
49:58
salvation of the elect, necessarily includes his
50:01
ordaining of the means, our faithful proclamation of the
50:03
gospel message. This knowledge should give
50:06
strong motivation and confidence in the ultimate success of God's
50:09
redemptive plan. Through our efforts, we labor,
50:12
knowing that our labor in the Lord is not in vain, precisely
50:15
because God is sovereignly at work accomplishing His purposes
50:18
through it. And finally, it really
50:20
underscores the absolute necessity of grace, highlighting
50:23
God's incredible kindness and mercy.
50:25
Yes, grace becomes absolutely central and necessary, and this
50:28
framework highlights that profoundly.
50:31
In the scheme, there is simply no basis for God's choice of
50:34
some to eternal life other than His own sovereign will and
50:37
undeserved kindness. Nothing in the individual, no
50:41
foreseen faith, no inherent merit, no special quality
50:44
persuades God to grant salvation.
50:46
It is entirely a gift, completely undeserved and freely
50:49
given by God purely out of His own good, pleasure and mercy.
50:53
Understanding this should lead to profound humility before God
50:56
and endless gratitude towards Him for His amazing, unmerited
50:59
grace in choosing and saving sinners like us.
51:02
Wow, what a lot to ponder in this deep dive.
51:05
We've really taken a close look at predestination today, a
51:08
doctrine that genuinely shapes how we view God's work and,
51:11
well, our own human condition. We've covered its definitions,
51:14
trace its historical progression, and compare these
51:17
diverse interpretation. It certainly highlights God's
51:19
comprehensive activity and salvation, doesn't it?
51:21
From eternity passed right through to its final completion.
51:24
And it really helps us consider our own place within His grand,
51:27
overarching design. As you think about all these
51:30
various perspectives we've discussed, particularly that
51:32
historical unfolding from Augustine right through Calvin,
51:36
Arminius, and then Barth's unique take, what insights maybe
51:40
stand out to you personally? How might understanding these
51:44
different views potentially reshape your own thinking about
51:47
God's activity and our human response in the biggest picture?
51:51
Something for you, the listener, to Mull over, perhaps?
51:53
We certainly trust this deep dive has provided some clarity,
51:57
maybe raise some new questions, and hopefully encouraged you to
52:00
continue searching for knowledge and understanding God's Word.
52:04
Thank you so much for joining us on the Deep Dive.
52:06
We look forward to our next exploration together.